In France Henry IV had established a substantial degree of religious toleration by the Edict of Nantes, which conceded freedom of worship to the Huguenots, although the Government was officially Catholic. Germany In Germany for half a century the principle had been broadly recognised that in each principality the prince recognised that form of religion which was acceptable to himself.
In the wake of the Smithian idea of free market, according to which trade required and created conditions for peace, the balance of power was rhetorically blamed for encouraging war and of being pro-aristocratic and anti-bourgeoisie: In the 19th century Europe was ruled by a Concert of Great Powers shaped as a balance-of-power system which was able to maintain peace and stability for a century.
Why was this system so harshly contested by such contemporary thinkers as Cobden? Why did such a system fail and result in the bloodiest war man had seen at that time?
Most importantly, could one truly speak about of balance of power during the 19th century? In this essay I argue that it was a different kind of politics to generate hostility, while a more comprehensive and systematic concept of balance of power was elaborated only in the Cold War period.
The idea of Balance of Power in the 19th Century The main reason for hostility toward the balance of power in the 19th century laid down on its conservative and hegemonic implications. Preserving the balance and ensuring the European state-system was the primary interest of F.
However, this idea of balance of power ended up justifying the existence of strong counterforce and a concept of stability completely uninterested in the fate of weaker countries: Departing from a polycentric distribution of power between the five great state actors afterHolsti identifies two common tasks on the ground of this multi-polar system: This structural transformation challenged the concept above-mentioned, and showed how it was incapable to working also for a wider spectrum of states.
Given the contradictions that such a definition of balance of power aroused, is it possible to speak about a straightforward definition of balance of power system between and ?
An answer to this question could be helpful to understand better why the balance of power as conceived in the 19th century generated a great deal of hostility both during that period and in the aftermath of the Concert breakdown.
In such a system there was anarchy only for the weakest actors, while the members of the restricted circle of great powers lived within an international society with its rules and its own equilibrium.
Such an international system was not entirely shaped by a clear concept or practice of balance of power. When united Germany took part in it as a newborn great power inBismarck harnessed diplomacy and took advantage of a highly-balanced system of alliances in order to preserve and to maintain the existing political equilibrium instrumental to the institutional strengthening and economic aggrandizement of his country.
Waltz sees the balance as an automatic consequence of the interactions of functionally similar units operating in an anarchy. Conclusion Balance of power, although remaining a fundamental institution of international society, was not a pillar of it in the 19th century.
This concerted purpose was inherently conservative and this was the reason for aversion. As a matter of fact, the necessity to sustain status quo and power relations resulting from the Restoration was perceived as instrumental to great powers objectives and their internal stability.
At that time, the emergence of two superpowers, ideologically and militarily in competition, and the appearance of nuclear weapons, required an original re-elaboration of balance of power as conceived until then, focused on protection of national sovereignty, worldwide peaceful co-existence and nuclear deterrence between the American and the Soviet hegemonies.
The Consolidated Treaty Series, ed. Neumann, Classical Theories of International Relations eds. Knopf,pp. Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: Haslam, Jonathan, No Virtue like Necessity: Treaty of Utrecht between Britain and Spain, 13 July We will conclude our first lesson with a discussion on the "Eastern Question," which refers to the fate of the Ottoman Empire and the balance of power in Europe.
Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself.
Start studying AP Euro Chapter The Balance of Power in 18th Century Europe.
Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. 45 CHAPTER 18 The Balance of Power in Eighteenth-Century Europe OUTLINE I. A Dashing Officer From the mid-seventeenth century onward Britain was the leading sea-power as well as an.
The European balance of power referred to European international relations before the First World War, which evolved into the present states of Europe. The Nineteenth Century political concept emerged at the Peace of Paris in Video: European Powers in the 18th Century: Alliances, Wars & the Balance of Power This lesson will provide an overview of the major alliances and wars of 18th century Europe.
We will meet the major players, explore their conflicts, and examine the delicate balance of power that was always in danger of falling apart.